Ex parte British Nylon Spinners Ltd and Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd; Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd's Patent [1963] HCA 28

Ex parte British Nylon Spinners Ltd and Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd; Re Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd's Patent [1963] HCA 28

The applicants were not entitled to apply for an extension under s. 95 because neither licence conferred the right to make, use, exercise and vend the patented invention throughout Australia to the exclusion of all other persons, including the patentee. Each licence conferred rights only within a limited field, and the applicants could not jointly be treated as the holder of a single exclusive licence within the statutory definition.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Case Stated Concerning Application for Extension of Term of Letters Patent Under S. 95 of the Patents Act 1952 1960 / High Court Answered the Question Raised by the Case Stated Pursuant to Order 35
Outcome
The question whether the applicants were not entitled to apply for an extension of the term of the letters patent was answered Yes.
Legal Topics
['extension of Term of Letters Patent' 'exclusive Licensee' 'statutory Interpretation' 'patents Act 1952 1960']
['patent Law'] ['extension of Term of Letters Patent' 'exclusive Licensee' 'statutory Interpretation' 'patents Act 1952 1960']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Case Stated Concerning Application for Extension of Term of Letters Patent Under S. 95 of the Patents Act 1952 1960 / High Court Answered the Question Raised by the Case Stated Pursuant to Order 35

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants were entitled to apply for an extension of the term of letters patent under s. 95 of the Patents Act 1952-1960.' 'Whether licences confined to limited fields made each applicant an exclusive licensee within the meaning of ss. 6 and 96 of the Patents Act 1952-1960.' 'Whether the applicants could jointly be regarded as the holder of an exclusive licence because their licences together covered the whole field in which the invention may be used.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were not entitled to apply for an extension under s. 95 because neither licence conferred the right to make, use, exercise and vend the patented invention throughout Australia to the exclusion of all other persons, including the patentee. Each licence conferred rights only within a limited field, and the applicants could not jointly be treated as the holder of a single exclusive licence within the statutory definition.

Court Disposition

The question whether the applicants were not entitled to apply for an extension of the term of the letters patent was answered Yes.

Orders

  • ['Question raised by the case stated answered Yes.' 'Costs of the case stated reserved for the order of the Court disposing of the application under s. 95.']